Academic Petition – Our petition, signed unanimously by graduate students in the Department of American Studies, was emailed to Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Judith Langlois on June 5th and received the following response on June 10th.
Because the Graduate School’s letter did not adequately address the concerns of American Studies graduate students, we have written an open letter below to the Senior Provost and Dean Langlois.
Academic Petition
Thank you for reviewing and responding to our request. Attention to our common concerns as graduate students in American Studies has been absent from other units and offices at The University of Texas at Austin in general and the College of Liberal Arts (COLA) in particular, so we greatly appreciate your response. Our goal is to encourage dialogue between graduate students and administrators, and we appreciate you and your office taking the time to consider our concerns. We look forward to continuing to work with you and everyone involved in this matter.
School Petition Template
However, we feel that elements of your answer are missing. It disagrees with what we understand about the new COLA graduate student funding and time-to-degree policies, national debates about reducing graduate student time, and our particular experiences as graduate students in the Department of American Studies. Accordingly, we would like to reiterate our call for the policy to be suspended pending review by all relevant stakeholders.
In the second point of your response, you write: “The College of Liberal Arts’ efforts to shorten the time to graduation are consistent with efforts at the university and in academia across the country. The proposed limits on candidacy extension and funding are approaches to encourage degree completion for all more efficient way.” Time to graduation is a very important issue; reducing the time spent in graduate school while maintaining academic standards of excellence is a project we all support. While COLA’s efforts here may be “consistent” with similar efforts at all universities and academic institutions across the country, that does not mean that the proposed policies exemplify the best course of action, are clear, or are fair. As our June 5th petition argues, they are short-sighted and ultimately unsustainable.Furthermore, the COLA policy is markedly different from recent academic debates about the best way to reduce time to graduate.
Consider the recent report of the Modern Language Association’s MLA Task Force on PhDs in Modern Language and Literature, which argues that any attempt to shorten the time to degree must first address curricular issues, which are the essence of the time students spend. program The MLA Report makes clear that attempts to shorten the time to graduation must work in tandem with faculty-led curriculum redesign that better meets the evolving needs of graduate students. Also, contrary to the new COLA policy, the MLA specifically advises against reducing the graduate student population, which hinders academic accessibility. COLA took the opposite approach here and implemented the new policies by administrative order; did not consult with faculty or graduate students before publishing them privately or publicly. The new policies do not focus on curriculum changes, but instead prioritize the needs of administrators over the needs of individual departments and the areas they represent.
In the third point of your response, you write: “While the College of Liberal Arts proposal includes limits on the number of years students will receive internal funding, there are no limits on the funding students may receive in the form of external scholarships and/or employment with other academic units university.” This differs from the information our department chair and graduate advisor received from Vice Dean Raizen on June 4th. We have been informed that after a COLA graduate student has been enrolled at the university for six years, they will not be eligible for COLA funding, regardless of how many years of COLA funding they have received at that time. This reflects both the language of the initial policy descriptions circulated to individual departments the week of April 28, and the language of the June 4 public announcement regarding the time devoted to graduate programs. As we understand it, eligibility criteria for COLA funding will be determined based on time spent at UT, regardless of the number of years receiving COLA funds. This is the least of the problems: The American Studies Department has been struggling to fund its students for over 4 years, which means that many students will not be able to receive COLA funds before their sixth year. We may be misinformed on this point, but if so, it is the result of inadequate communication on the part of the COLA administrators, who have failed to clearly define all aspects of this policy in a public forum.
Response To The Graduate School
In his fourth point, he writes, “The liberal arts college and graduate school have been discussing reducing the time to degree within individual departments since the mid-2000s.” That’s certainly true. Although graduate students were not privy to such discussions, our department chair and graduate advisor confirmed that they had taken place and that they were successful in allowing faster time to graduation. COLA’s press release confirms that these discussions were successful for graduates who entered between 2002 and 2007. However, our petition is not directed at these past discussions, but at the recently proposed policies that supersede these reforms focused on the Department of Global a policy that ignores differences between departments. The entire UT Austin graduate community was not open to comment or debate on either the COLA policies or their implementation until we were informed that they were non-negotiable. COLA’s “careful development” of these policies did not include the stakeholders most affected by them.
Finally, COLA’s descriptions of a “phase-in period” were ambiguous. COLA did not specifically describe the criteria by which it will grant exemptions to current students from the new policies. While she may take into account the circumstances of “each individual student”, the absence of a strict description of how she will take them into account is cause for serious concern. This is of particular concern given that a “succession policy” for current graduate students was not considered, a reasonable proposition given the number of graduate students who have been working in good faith with existing policies since matriculation. These students are now subject to radically changed rules that threaten to change the course of their work and education unless they meet an exception that is impossible to determine given the vagueness of policies in this area. In short, while you confidently write that current graduate students should not worry about their future at UT Austin, that “no current American Studies student will find their PhD program suddenly terminated or unsupported,” we hear nothing from COLA. address these concerns. Your “conversations with the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts” might make it easier for you to make such claims, but we were not part of or involved in such discussions.
Indeed, we think these new policies are “pretty draconian.” They directly threaten our livelihood, our education, and the future professions we have been training for since enrolling at UT Austin. Since we have been excluded from any discussion of their implementation, we will continue to consider them “draconian” until they are suspended pending review by all parties involved. As we said in our original petition, “it is irresponsible for departments and graduate programs to continue implementing these proposed guidelines” in the absence of such a review period.
Again, we appreciate your careful consideration of our request and greatly appreciate your response. We hope that this exchange will be the first of many on this topic, and that together we can address the pressures and changes facing our university while maintaining the standards of excellence that the academic community has come to know and expect from The University of Texas. in Austin The text is not complete until our editors check it for completeness. They have an eye for detail, so mistakes will not go unnoticed. Our experts are constantly improving their qualifications in order to provide you with even better services.
Academic Petition To Stop The Destruction Of The Djab Wurrung Sacred Trees
I am writing to the Johnson University Disciplinary Committee to appeal my readmission to Johnson University. About two years ago I came before his commission on a charge of drunkenness and reckless conduct. I was foolish to think that my actions were completely harmless, and because of my carelessness, my colleague ended up in the hospital. My mistakes have haunted me for the past two years and I know the school was right to expel me. However, I have taken this time to reflect on my actions and grow as a person, and I hope this letter demonstrates my desire to return to my studies.
When I entered college, I was more focused on the social aspect of school that I saw on TV. I paid little attention to the privileges I had in obtaining a higher education. When I was kicked out of school, I had to find a job and started working on self-improvement. I realized the real reason
Academic petition example, file petition, academic petition form, academic petition letter example, petition maker, academic petition letter, petition website, uncc academic petition, sample academic petition letter, start petition, how to write an academic petition, academic freedom petition
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-815165952-4c72847085a44cd68f3c3db136193a45.jpg?strip=all)
Post a Comment for "Academic Petition"